Friday, July 06, 2012

Stamp Act Resistance, British Capitulation, And The Townshend Acts In Pre-Revolutionary America

I am co-author of a new American
history textbook for college students, The American Challenge: A New
History of the United States. Below,
in a passage I co-authored with Norwood Andrews, we discuss the spreading
resistance to the British Stamp Act in the 1760s, and the British’s
government’s capitulation on this law, and rising opposition to the Townshend
Acts, as the 13 British colonies in North America edge closer to
revolution.

Together, Patrick Henry’s
inflammatory rhetoric and the explosion of the Boston mob helped spread flames
across the colonies. In July, Otis had called for a Stamp Act Congress of
delegates from all the colonies. Representatives from nine colonies
convened in New York in October, and issued more resolutions. Like the
Virginia Resolves, the Congress invoked the historic rights and liberties of
British subjects.Others went
about it differently. Local politicians organized demonstrations, which
turned into riots, in Newport, Rhode Island, in several Connecticut towns, and
in New York City, where crowds seized the colonial governor’s coach, burned it,
and sacked the home of a commander of the local British garrison manning the
harbor. In each of the colonies, stamp distributors either resigned their
commissions on their own or were forced to do so by mobs.

The spirit of rebellion turned out
to be difficult to contain, and even whites leading the opposition to the Stamp
Act became nervous as they feared that their slaves might also rise up.In Charles Town, South Carolina, white
artisans had marched with their effigies on the local stamp distributor’s home,
chanting and waving flags bearing the word “Liberty.”Whites were a minority in the city;most of the residents were black
slaves. Whites began to fear that the African Americans would attempt a revolt
of their own. One day in January 1766, as one white resident recalled it,
“some negroes, apparently in thoughtless imitation, began to cry ‘Liberty,’ ”
and almost simultaneously more than one hundred slaves escaped from plantations
outside the city. “The city was thrown in arms for a week,” and masters
throughout the colony alerted each other and prepared for the worst.

As the protests echoed up and down the Atlantic seaboard, respectable
protest leaders sought greater control over the forces they had unleashed. In
Boston, shortly after stating their disapproval and regret over the destruction
of Hutchinson’s mansion, the Loyal Nine rebranded themselves as “Sons of
Liberty” (using a phrase from a speech in the House of Commons) and focused on
sustaining the opposition movement while calming its penchant for violence.
The new name was quickly adopted by opposition leaders in other colonies.
In Boston, the Sons of Liberty claimed some successes. They held mass
meetings and mock trials of the Stamp Act, under the same elm tree (now renamed
the Liberty Tree, or “Liberty Hall”) where the demonstrations had begun.
With funds contributed by a wealthy young merchant named John Hancock,
they bought a general’s fine uniform for McIntosh, and arranged for him to lead
both of the Pope’s Day companies in a more orderly celebration. (Several years
later, when McIntosh fell into debtor’s prison, none of the Sons of Liberty
could be found to bail him out.)

Meanwhile, in late 1765, merchants in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia
organized a boycott of British goods, which proved crucial in killing the hated
Stamp Act.Rising prosperity over
decades had fostered the trade in British-made goods, but with the economic
downturn reducing new purchases anyway, merchants were willing to suspend new
shipments and focus on selling off their existing inventories. Sons of
Liberty enforced the boycott, which proved to be a turning point.In London, Grenville had alienated the
King over matters unrelated to the empire, and was dismissed from his ministry
in July 1765. The incoming government had no commitment of its own to the
stamp tax, and it received numerous petitions from hard-pressed British
merchants seeking policies that would promote trade rather than discourage it.
Franklin, still in London, offered testimony before Parliament that
shrewdly emphasized colonial loyalty as well as economic grievances. In
March 1766, an act repealing the Stamp Act was passed into law. An accompanying
Declaratory Act, however, set an ominous tone, insisting that Parliament
retained “full power and authority” to make laws binding the colonies “in all
cases whatsoever.”The Townshend Acts

The colonists’ rejoicing over the death of the Stamp Act was
short-lived. The Declaratory Act cast a shadow over their celebrations
from the start, with its defiant message that many of the colonists’ arguments
had been heard but not accepted. The sugar taxes remained in place.
Moreover, the budget problems facing His Majesty’s government had hardly
disappeared with the Stamp Act. Barely a year after the Stamp Act’s
repeal, an entirely new tax scheme essentially reopened the whole dispute.
Another turnover of ministries placed responsibility for government finances
in the hands of Charles Townshend, a clever politician with a short attention
span and few visible principles, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer (the
British equivalent of Treasury Secretary.).He felt forced to seek revenues from America.
Townshend’s Revenue Act of 1767 placed new import duties on an odd
selection of goods for which colonial consumers relied on the import trade:
lead, paint, glass, paper, and tea. The revenue yield would not be
great, but Townshend viewed it as a first step. Perhaps more important,
it would cover salaries for royal governors and magistrates. Townshend
packaged his revenue act with other laws aimed at strengthening the authority
of royal customs collectors, and punishing New York for failing to pay for
housing British army forces.

In the colonies, few were truly
eager for renewed conflict, and at first the response to the Townshend Acts was
muted. For the colonists, the issue remained not the amount of the tax,
but that the colonies had no voice in the debate about the Townshend duties.
The Townshend duties might be a small burden, but the colonists could see
clearly enough how they could create a precedent for future taxes imposed by an
unresponsive Parliament across the Atlantic Ocean.

Once again, Boston took the lead. Samuel Adams, a longtime member
of the Caucus group and one of the Sons of Liberty, stepped forward.
Adams, uniquely well suited to the leadership role he created, was
respectable yet humble, the son of a prosperous tradesman (and maltster, a provider
of malted grains—not a brewer as legend has it, although close). Never
successful in business himself, he led an austere life out of both necessity
and principle. While the increasingly erratic Otis had connected with the rank
and file through bold oratory and shared animosity, Adams treated Caucus
followers as social equals and maintained their trust—and votes—through his
absolute commitment to the idea of a common cause. Holding a seat in the
Massachusetts colonial legislature, Adams secured its approval of a letter to
“sister colonies,” presenting the case against the Townshend Acts as
“infringements of their natural and constitutional rights.”

The Massachusetts Circular Letter
stirred a renewal of opposition throughout the colonies.In Boston, it led to the suspension of
the legislature itself (by Royal Governor Francis Bernard, acting on orders
from London). As royal customs commissioners attempted to enforce the
duties, ominous crowds again filled the streets. At “Liberty Hall,” under
the tree branches, the Sons of Liberty convened official town meetings and
passed resolutions condemning the governor. The newly arrived customs
commissioners appealed for armed support, reporting to London that, “the
Governor and Magistracy have not the least Authority or power in this place.”
Their request was heard. In October 1767, transport ships arrived from
Canada carrying four regiments of British army regulars. Boston was now a
city under military occupation.

As accounts of strife in Boston spread through the colonies, resistance
took on a more urgent character. In London, Townshend and his successors
remained intent on asserting imperial authority, and directed governors in all
colonies to dissolve legislatures that endorsed the Massachusetts Circular
Letter. Cut off from expressing opposition through their established
institutions, colonists resorted to more extreme tactics. Non-importation
of British goods, the same policy agreed upon by merchants during the Stamp Act
crisis, became a crucial means of resistance once again. This time,
however, a more resolute imperial policy would test the ability of colonists to
mount a sustained opposition. Merchants had suffered economically during
previous boycotts, and they wanted to spread the pain of resistance around more
broadly.In each of the seaport
cities, artisans—often having struggled for years to compete with imported
British products—now emerged in a critical role. Under pressure from
Samuel Adams and his followers, Boston merchants reluctantly agreed in August
1768 to cease shipments of most British goods. In Charles Town, an alliance of
artisans and rice planters put forward similar demands in a series of public
meetings. But, as opponents organized, they also began looking beyond the
merchants and toward consumers, toward the broader public itself. In
Boston, town officials encouraged “Persons of all Ranks” to sign an agreement
publicly pledging to “encourage the Use and Consumption of all Articles
manufactured in any of the British American Colonies” and to avoid purchasing
“Articles from abroad.” So-called “Subscription lists” quickly spread
beyond Boston as well.

By 1769, while “committees of inspection” in each colony enforced the
non-importation campaign among merchants, the consumer boycott movement had
extended the resistance movement into colonial communities and households.
A decision not to buy imported “Articles”—or a pledge not to do so—made
one a participant in the broader struggle against British tyranny.Spending money on luxury items took on
a new political meaning. It made one a traitor to a virtuous cause. Attempting
to discredit the resistance movement, Peter Oliver (brother of Andrew Oliver,
the Boston stamp distributor) portrayed the Boston subscription list in what he
thought was a ridiculous way: “Among the various prohibited Articles,
were Silks, Velvets, Clocks, Watches, Coaches & Chariots; & it was
highly diverting, to see the names & marks, of Porters & Washing
Women.” For Oliver, a statement “signed” by humble and illiterate folk
meant that the movement represented little more than a mob action.Unscrupulous boycott leaders, he
suggested, had manipulated the lower classes into an act of disloyalty.
The class diversity of boycott participants, however, suggested how deep the
opposition to British government policies had grown.

“The
Current is Stronger’: Images of Racial Oppression and Resistance in North Texas
Black Art During the 1920s and 1930s ” in Bruce A. Glasrud and Cary D.
Wintz, eds., The Harlem Renaissance in the West: The New Negroes’ Western
Experience (New York:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2011)

“Dallas,
1989-2011,” in Richardson Dilworth, ed. Cities in American Political History (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2011)

(With
John Anthony Moretta and Keith J. Volanto), Keith J. Volonto and Michael
Phillips, eds., The American Challenge: A New History of the United States, Volume II. (Wheaton, Il.: Abigail Press,
2012).

“Texan by
Color: The Racialization of the Lone Star State,” in David Cullen and Kyle
Wilkison, eds., The Radical Origins of the Texas Right (College Station: University of Texas
Press, 2013).

He
is currently collaborating, with longtime journalist Betsy Friauf, on a history
of African American culture, politics and black intellectuals in the Lone Star
State called God Carved in Night: Black Intellectuals in Texas and the
World They Made.

No comments:

Followers

About Me

I received my Ph.D. in history from the University of Texas at Austin. My first book, "White Metropolis: Race, Ethnicity and Religion in Dallas, 1841-2001," won the Texas State Historical Commission's T.R. Fehrenbach Award for best work on Texas history in 2007. My second book, "The House Will Come to Order: How the Texas Speaker Became a Power in State and National Politics" will be published by the University of Texas Press March 1, 2010.
My beautiful boy Dominic was born on May 30, 2003. He's an avid reader and loves Harry Potter and Star Wars.
I am a frustrated political liberal, holding Democrats in contempt but too suspicious about the competence of the Green Party to make the leap.
I am married to a wonderful woman named Betsy Friauf who was my editor at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram 20 years ago. We will be writing books together.
My only appointment television is "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report" and "Countdown with Keith Olbermann." I also love to cook when I have the time.